Do we really need walk-through gangways?

[AM9]

If anyone feels it unsafe to be in an open gangway on the new stock, they could simply not sit/stand near one. I doubt I'm going to worry too much about what's a pretty unlikely event.

I agree, the 700s will be spending a lot of their time travelling at 100mph (at least north of the Thames) and the extra space and free movement that the wide gangways give will be welcome. All this talk of 'risk' is really out of context. The overall risk scenario is that failure to provide adequate capacity on rail services will force some travellers onto road with its much higher risk of injury or even death.

 

[edwin_m]

the OP isn't referring to normal corridor connections, but the open 'walk-through' connections as seen on LO's Class 378s, LU's S stock, Tyne & Wear Metro stock and modern trams.

Wide gangways are standard features on articulated vehicles including modern trams, Tyne and Wear and also the DLR stock. I don't think there is a big safety concern here because the articulation provides a strong structural link here. There is a greater (but still in my view very small) risk with 378s and S stock where each coach sits on a pair of bogies in the conventional way so separation is more likely.

The wide gangway, if combined with a wide aisle as it is on those trains, does allow for emergency evacuation through the train by people in wheelchairs.

 

[AM9]

Wide gangways are standard features on articulated vehicles including modern trams, Tyne and Wear and also the DLR stock. I don't think there is a big safety concern here because the articulation provides a strong structural link here. There is a greater (but still in my view very small) risk with 378s and S stock where each coach sits on a pair of bogies in the conventional way so separation is more likely.

The wide gangway, if combined with a wide aisle as it is on those trains, does allow for emergency evacuation through the train by people in wheelchairs.

This is the usual problem of comparing risk, ie., the risk of a collision/derailment in a train is (thankfully) very small. Any potential risk with wide gangway links is slightly greater but still very small. The benefits vs. increase in total actual risk probably tend to zero

 

[450 spotter]

Here's my view on it.
I personally like my doors between carriages, and I feel that these wide gangways will make the train feel like 1 big, long carriage.

Will all new EMU's be fitted with them?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Here's my view on it.
I personally like my doors between carriages, and I feel that these wide gangways will make the train feel like 1 big, long carriage.

Will all new EMU's be fitted with them?

They'll probably become the norm for all "metro" type services eventually

 

[NotATrainspott]

Here's my view on it.
I personally like my doors between carriages, and I feel that these wide gangways will make the train feel like 1 big, long carriage.

Will all new EMU's be fitted with them?

I think all new EMUs intended for high-density routes with standing passengers will have them. I previously thought that the new AT200 units for the main Edinburgh to Glasgow line would have them but I've been proven wrong:

 

[edwin_m]

This is the usual problem of comparing risk, ie., the risk of a collision/derailment in a train is (thankfully) very small. Any potential risk with wide gangway links is slightly greater but still very small. The benefits vs. increase in total actual risk probably tend to zero

Indeed, and the rarity fo accidents also makes it very difficult to quantify the increase or decrease in risk from a particular variation in the train design. There have been no fatalities in Britain in recent years due to ejection from gangways either wide or narrow as far as I'm aware, but even if one happened tomorrow it wouldn't provide an answer that was statistically significant.